"My first memory was being in the movie theater — the strongest one up to this date, 60 or 48 years later. I still remember the shock of being transported into another dimension. Also, going through the gate of light like if I’d taken a huge dose of acid, like discovering other dimensions. But when you discover dimensions in a safe context as a movie theater, it looks even better. When I came out from that movie, I felt someone had injected me with something in the brain. I was obsessed with going to see the end of 2001. I liked the ape scenes, I like the beginning, but I just wanted to go again and again to see the movie, to go through the Stargate. And I’m happy, I met lately Douglas Trumbull [who did the visual effects on 2001], and we discussed Love, and he’s seen Enter the Void. For me, Douglas Trumbull was one of the very best partners in crime in this masterpiece, and just meeting him for me was just like discovering what was happening behind the curtain of the movie. This is the guy who like opened my mind when I was six years old."

"A masterpiece. Kubrick is one of the most fascinating directors of all time. The fact that this movie sits alongside 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining in his filmography is mind-boggling. Peter Sellers was so understated. This movie constantly reminds me how comedy is funnier when you ground it in real circumstances. The more dramatic the stakes, the more you can mine laughs out of people who have to squirm through those situations. I still try to emulate Kubrick’s sense of editing and composition. I patterned a war room scene in Get Smart after the one in Strangelove."

"""2001: A Space Odyssey. What I love about that is, in a similar way to Spinal Tap, it trusts the audience to have the patience that there’s gonna be something fulfilling in there. Not only the visuals. I think if you watch it now, with 21st century eyes, it can seem to some people like a very slow movie, where nothing happens for a long time. Visually it’s very innovative, but we’re so used to 15 cuts a second now that we’re not used to things being played out with that much pace and that much finesse and style and patience. I think, to watch it now, it’s seeing filmmaking with such confidence, the fact that he can hold those shots for as long as he holds them, and he can trust the audience to come along with him on the ride. It can be slow. It’s always visually breathtaking. But I think, to see it now, it looks like filmmaking from such a different time. If it was made now, it would be an assault on the senses. Everything would be very quick, everything would be breathless, everything would be very frantic, but Kubrick was such a confident filmmaker that he was able to play that whole story out with such pace and such style and trust that the audience was smart enough to be dragged along for the ride and stick with it until the end. That’s what I love about it, the pace of it. The respect for the audience’s intelligence. I like to feel part of those clubs and I think 2001 is the ultimate example of that kind of club where, if you understand why this is brilliant, then you’ll do for me. If you understand why this is brilliant, then you’re my kind of guy. And I like being involved in those miniature elite subcultures. 2001 is the perfect example of that."

"I kind of briefly threw The Shining out there, so that gets its own due, which means I can fall back on 2001, I suppose? I think that film speaks for itself, if I could explain that film to you, then I’d be… I don’t know what I’d be, one in ten who could explain it to you, but there was a followup called 2010 with Roy Scheider, which wasn’t a great film, but if it did anything, it helped explain 2001 a little bit, but 2001… I remember my father took me to see that in the theater, and that was so awe inspiring, and just to see where the imagination and creativity could go on screen as an 11-year-old kid, or however old I was. And to have seen that film over and over and over again and ask new questions every time I do, it’s been a pretty profound staple in my house for years. Then you get into all the conspiracy stuff. You attach the lunar landing — Kubrick shot the lunar landing stuff in it, and the rear screen projection that was used in the space scenes and in the ape scenes in the beginning, and how conspiracy theorists surmise that that’s what he used to shoot the moon landing. Did you hear all that? The theory is that NASA got a hold of the footage from 2001, saw it, and got Stanley Kubrick to shoot all the moon landing stuff in his studio and broadcast it across the country. Now, they’re not saying that we didn’t go to the moon, they’re saying that what the people in America saw was shot in a studio, because at that time we didn’t want to broadcast to the world what we may or may not have found on the moon — which actually makes more sense then it just being… It’s not, “We didn’t go.” We went. But we didn’t want the Russians to see, or we didn’t want Japan to see, or China to see what we’re discovering, you know? In case there’s anything there, or anything that we could weaponize, so Kubrick shot all this stuff in a sound stage, and that was the agreement. That’s why NASA gave Kubrick a super, super special space lens that he used for Barry Lyndon, because Barry Lyndon wasn’t shot with any lights. It was all natural light… candles, or sunlight, or whatever, so he used the lens, and that’s what allowed the light to get in for the film process, but there’s so many layers to the Kubrick stuff and I just, as a conspiracy theory fan, I like to have that in the back of my brain while I’m watching those films."